This is a breath of fresh air for me, because as we’ve seen time and again, often we get the press release on a paper, but not the paper itself, as it is often hidden behind journal membership rules or a paywall.
From an AIP and AAU press release:
Expert panel calls on US research agencies to develop policies for providing free public access to federally sponsored research results
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 12, 2010 — An expert panel of librarians, library scientists, publishers, and university academic leaders today called on federal agencies that fund research to develop and implement policies that ensure free public access to the results of the research they fund “as soon as possible after those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.”
The Scholarly Publishing Roundtable was convened last summer by the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology, in collaboration with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Policymakers asked the group to examine the current state of scholarly publishing and seek consensus recommendations for expanding public access to scholarly journal articles.
The various communities represented in the Roundtable have been working to develop recommendations that would improve public access without curtailing the ability of the scientific publishing industry to publish peer-reviewed scientific articles.
The Roundtable’s recommendations, endorsed in full by the overwhelming majority of the panel (12 out of 14 members), “seek to balance the need for and potential of increased access to scholarly articles with the need to preserve the essential functions of the scholarly publishing enterprise,” according to the report.
“I want to commend the members of the Roundtable for reaching broad agreement on some very difficult issues,” said John Vaughn, executive vice president of the Association of American Universities, who chaired the group. “Our system of scientific publishing is an indispensible part of the scientific enterprise here and internationally. These recommendations ensure that we can maintain that system as it evolves and also ensure full and free public access to the results of research paid for by the American taxpayer.”
The Roundtable identified a set of principles viewed as essential to a robust scholarly publishing system, including the need to preserve peer review, the necessity of adaptable publishing business models, the benefits of broader public access, the importance of archiving, and the interoperability of online content.
In addition, the group affirmed the high value of the “version of record” for published articles and of all stakeholders’ contributions to sustaining the best possible system of scholarly publishing during a time of tremendous change and innovation.
To implement its core recommendation for public access, the Roundtable recommended the following:
- Agencies should work in full and open consultation with all stakeholders, as well as with OSTP, to develop their public access policies.
- Agencies should establish specific embargo periods between publication and public access.
- Policies should be guided by the need to foster interoperability.
- Every effort should be made to have the Version of Record as the version to which free access is provided.
- Government agencies should extend the reach of their public access policies through voluntary collaborations with non-governmental stakeholders.
- Policies should foster innovation in the research and educational use of scholarly publications.
- Government public access policies should address the need to resolve the challenges of long-term digital preservation.
- OSTP should establish a public access advisory committee to facilitate communication among government and nongovernment stakeholders.
In issuing its report, the Roundtable urged all interested parties to move forward, beyond “the too-often acrimonious” past debate over access issues towards a collaborative framework wherein federal funding agencies can build “an interdependent system of scholarly publishing that expands public access and enhances the broad, intelligent use of the results of federally-funded research.”
The report, as well as a list of Roundtable members, member biographies, and the House Science and Technology Committee’s charge to the group, can be found at:
http://www.aau.edu/policy/scholarly_publishing_roundtable.aspx?id=6894
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This has been the norm for NIH funded research for quite some time now. Publications, materials, data, reagents are to be shared. The public paid for it, the public shouldn’t stand for lack of access.
surely they must create a government Journal for the publication of all Government research.
This is a difficult problem, because the journals have copyright rights. Maybe the answer is to not publish in a journal, but on a website where the article can be commented on directly, ala Willis’ Darwin Zero article. Could the scientific community which is deeply committed to the journal paradigm be convinced to go another way?
OT: Anthony, could you open up a discussion about TOBS?
It needs to have the paper, along with all data and computer programs to replicate the results.
Ahhh, some good news. : )
I think they should go one step further and allow free public comment, like on this website. : )
Yes….this is a GREAT step in the right direction.
Nice to see some positive news amid all the scandals.
Particularly liked this quote:
“In addition, the group affirmed the high value of the “version of record” for published articles and of all stakeholders’ contributions to sustaining the best possible system of scholarly publishing during a time of tremendous change and innovation.”
Bless you, dear old librarians!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Do you see anything wrong with the following statement?
Quote
“Policymakers asked the group to examine the current state of scholarly publishing and seek consensus recommendations for expanding public access to scholarly journal articles.”
The so called “Climate” scientists were asked to find global warming, and they did.
The CRU tape letters fallout accelerates.2010 is going to be a very good year.
Never underestimate your friendly librarian!!
We need the original data, methods and models not the results or the research paper. The only thing that the research paper will allow us to confirm is the quality of the paper, the toner and the xerographic process.
We need to see the how, all of it, not the what.
We need to be able to reproduce the results, on our own, from scratch. No other method is scientific.
Congratulations to AIP and AAU for endorsing the concept of free public access to the results of publicly funded research.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Full version control. Who What Where Why and When. Full archive of paper, data and programs. To embrace archival procedures would be a step the the present from the past.
Congratulations to AIP and AAU for endorsing the concept of free public access to the results of publicly funded research.
And it needs to be retroactive.
I see a lot of weasel words.
“”to develop and implement policies that ensure free public access to the results of the research they fund “”
I’m not sure this goes far enough. I don’t see anything here mentioning the data they base their “results” on being archived .
Wow, I always assumed that public funded research papers were open to the public.
If these recommendations are adopted and implemented, then we will see which Editorial Boards and other committees of professional organizations have been issuing statements that the rank and file dues paying members do not agree with, such as CO2=CAGW in any form. Expect push-back from those who know their wrongdoing will be exposed.
Imagine, for example, that this email was available to the public that pays taxes in the expectation of getting honest climate science, and the CRU-controlled journals and peer reviewed submissions had been forced to publicly archive their AGW data and methodology shortly after publication: click
The East Anglia emails [surely just the tip of the iceberg] contain massive evidence of scientific fraud occurring over many years, showing conclusively that Michael Mann and the CRU simply juggled numbers and fabricated data as they went along, until it was beaten into shape to fit their preconceived AGW agenda. The climate clique’s methods cannot be hand-waved away simply as innocent chatter at this point.
That is why the CRU and Mann are so desperately stonewalling requests for their data and methods, aided and abetted by the professional journals they also control [Michael Mann, for example, sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Climate, and was a guest editor for a special issue of Climatic Change. Mann is also an anonymous referee for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JGR-Oceans, JGR-Atmospheres, Paleo Oceanography, Eos, International Journal of Climatology, and the NSF, NOAA, and DOE grant programs — which explains why skeptical scientists receive so little grant money: if they can’t get published, it is very difficult to get funding.
A referee is a powerful position, so it is no surprise that Mann and his clique have insinuated themselves into so many publications as referees. In the peer review system of science journals, the anonymous referee is the gatekeeper, and has the power to reject papers that are deemed, in the sole and arbitrary opinion of the referee, to not meet “scientific standards.” Thus, papers skeptical of AGW are routinely rejected by anonymous referees.
These journals have been complicit in hiding scientific malfeasance. But now, too many people want to know the whole story. Eventually the dam will break, along with plenty of reputations.
Why is there any need for private fee based journals with public research? What right does a private journal have to profit from publicly financed research. What does a tax payer or science gain from this relationship? I would like to see all the government financed work published.
What value do journals bring to the process and what -if anything- should replace them. Perhaps the science community should question this and then tell our elected officials what is needed rather than wait for a dictate to come from above. Interested in hearing any ideas.
reminder:
‘Climategate’ professor Michael Mann protected ‘to maximum extent’ by Penn
State policy
So, the team consists of Foley, plus William Brune, Mann’s boss, who has
headed Penn State’s meteorology department for about a decade, and Candice
Yekel, director of the Office of Research Protections, who reports to Foley.
If the committee feels the allegations warrant further scrutiny, Foley will
appoint another committee — this time five tenured professors who have “no
conflicts of interest and are competent to evaluate the issues objectively.”
http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/12/climategate-professor-michael-mann-protected-to-maximum-extent-by-penn-state-policy/
So it’s gov’t funded research, and should be open to anyone as a product of their tax dollars. If we were serious about this would it not include the research products that both did and did not get published along with all reviewer and referee comments for each research product? Put another way, if it was funded in whole or in part by tax dollars the results need to be put out for the taxpayer to see.
For real world wide immediate peer review publish to WUWT.
Wouldn’t that be scary to anyone trying to make their spurs in any field of science.
World wide exposure of the “facts” and every Tom ,Dick and Harry pokeing holes in your conclusions. No secret buddy – buddy arrangments, no hidding the data.
Wikijournals?
Andrew totally agree. I am an Editor of 3 journals in a different field but the Statistics and Method are nearly always similar. We demand that authors provide all raw data. In “Climate Science” one main problem seems to be cherry picking.. ie: start and end dates. Notice how most of the temp graphs on Wikipedia end in 2007 hahaha
Be very, very careful what you wish for here. A move like this would completely change the regulatory regime obtaining over American businesses and industries, and not always in invariably beneficial ways. I don’t see how one could possibly limit the provisions of the measure to groups doing only publicly funded “climate science,” or some other such innocuous thing, especially after the tort lawyers get a hold of it. What will happen to corporations doing proprietary research (such as pharmaceutical companies, aviation companies, and defense contractors) who also happen to take public monies? Will they be forced to disclose their research as well? In that case, it is quite likely that all research capital will go private, with the result being that research will proceed basically unregulated. This would be a libertarian’s dream, but it is simply not workable in reality. If you think you’ve seen unethical business behavior before, you ain’t seen nothing yet.